# Is Obama's Approval Rating Going to Plunge into the Toilet at Record Speed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2009, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652 "2009-02-13T04:12:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/101 "2009-02-17T03:29:44Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Oh **Sam** , you also made this claim:Well if you think $8 billion is so much, why are [the](http://www.americablog.com/2009/02/summary-of-final-stimulus-package.html) $27.5 billion for highways, $8.4 billion for mass transit, $11 billion for the electrical grid, another $6 billion for loan guarantees for other electrical production and grid improvements (including renewables) so unimpressive? They’re not unimpressive… But the stuff you mentioned amounts to about 7% of the stimulus package. > [@](#): > > Tax cuts were $286 billion, $51 billion to the states, $311 billion in appropriations. All together of that $311 billion, $120 billion is for infrastructure (38.6%, not 17% as you claim) and maybe adding it all up and including some things that scarcely should count as “government buildings” (like public housing), maybe some 12 - 13% of that goes to “government buildings” ($4.5 billion for increasing government buildings energy efficiencies, 3.1 for public and tribal land buildings, 1.2 for VA hospitals, 4 for public housing, and a few other items) - certainly not “most”. > > Who are you? George Will? Where do you get such misinformation? Look, this is clearly going to be a matter spin and interpretation. You get 38.6% because you’re only including the ‘appropriations’ part. If you consider it as part of the entire stimulus, it comes out to more like 15%. The 17% number I got may have come from the Senate version, and not the final compromise package, but either one is pretty close to what I said. As for the tax cuts, many of those aren’t cuts at all, but refundable tax credits, which are more like government payments to low-income individuals. Progressives have learned to call them ‘tax cuts’ to placate small government conservatives, but they’re really not. I have to run. I’ll bring more detail later. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/102 "2009-02-17T04:47:30Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > As for the tax cuts, many of those aren’t cuts at all, but refundable tax credits, which are more like government payments to low-income individuals. Progressives have learned to call them ‘tax cuts’ to placate small government conservatives, but they’re really not. Hmm, in your recent post, you were carping because you felt that much of the spending in the stimulus bill wasn’t stimulative enough: > [@Sam Stone](#): > > A lot of this money just can’t be justified as a ‘stimulus’, because no one knows how to spend the money quickly Now, what could be more stimulative or conducive to quick spending than “payments to low-income individuals” (who, I note, are for the most part low-income members of the working class who benefit from the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit)? But no: when confronted with this nice piece of economic goose-booster, you hasten to change the subject by complaining that this particular type of tax-policy stimulus is one that you disapprove of on ideological grounds. You’re really giving the impression here that you’re just scrambling to pelt the stimulus plan with every possible negative reaction that occurs to you off the top of your head, rather than expressing coherent and principled objections to it. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/103 "2009-02-17T05:11:09Z")
There is, even you may agree, a certain irony in your begrudging how much of the package is in tax cuts vs. spending. Yes, of the $787 (or 789.5 depending on the source) billion package less than 40% is spending on appropriations. That liberal bastion, [Bloomberg.com](http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=home&sid=a9TTCsp0VS_8), notes this: > [@](#): > > The stimulus plan’s costliest item is a $400 payroll tax cut for individuals and $800 for couples. Retirees, disabled veterans and others who don’t pay payroll taxes will get a $250 payment. The bill also includes an alternative minimum tax cut. … Businesses won several tax breaks, including faster write- offs for equipment purchased in 2009 and incentives for companies that produce and invest in renewable resources such as solar and wind power. A business tax break pushed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will ease near-term tax burdens on companies and buyout firms that restructure debt without entering bankruptcy. Maybe we should look to an even more liberal source, the [Wall Street Journal](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123436825805373367.html), to fact check your claim about so many of these being disguised “payments to low-income individuals”? > [@](#): > > About $282 billion of the bill, or 35%, is dedicated to tax cuts, split roughly evenly between incentives for businesses and individuals. The rest is spending, including expanded unemployment benefits, food stamps and construction of highways and bridges, water-treatment facilities and high-speed Internet service, among other things. … The bill gives more aid for middle-class families and workers who lose their jobs, including fresh subsidies for health insurance. Businesses get a range of incentives for new investments. Small businesses with revenue under $5 million a year would be able to use current losses to reduce taxes paid over the past five years, a provision that cost about $2 billion. Large manufacturers had been covered in earlier version that cost more than $19 billion, but were rebuffed in final trade-offs on the bill. > > The final deal included a $5.3 billion tax break that allows corporations to speed up deductions for investments in plants and equipment, and another allowing small businesses to deduct business expenditures of up to $250,000 directly from their tax liabilities. … A proposed $35 billion credit to support home sales was jettisoned in favor of a more modest $2 billion to $3 billion provision. > > The proposal would eliminate the repayment requirement in an existing tax credit for first-time home buyers, and raise the credit to $8,000 from $7,500. … a federal income-tax deduction on local taxes on new-car purchases. … Mr. Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax cut – a payroll-tax holiday for workers – was scaled back. The package set the value of the benefit at $400 for individual workers, down from $500 in the proposal he floated on the campaign trail, and at $800 for couples, down from $1,000. The benefit would phase out for workers making $75,000 a year and for couples earning $140,000. > > The package would broaden the reach of the child tax credit, lowering the minimum income required for workers to qualify for the credit to $3,000. Under current law, the minimum income was $8,500 for 2008 and is set to rise to about $12,000 for 2009, congressional aides said. … Alternative Minimum Tax: Higher exemption will lead to an average tax-bill saving of $503 on income between $66,354 and $111,645. … So how much of that fits your description? _Maybe_ the broadening of the reach of the child tax credit. And that’s it. (And outside of tax cuts there is the expanded unemployment benefits, but that’s not being sold as tax cuts, so clearly is not what you were referring to.) The rest is solid tax cuts, again quoting the WSJ, “split roughly evenly between incentives for businesses and individuals” … you _are_ George Will, aren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/104 "2009-02-17T06:12:54Z")
Sam Stone may be wrong on his numbers, but he is right on the point. Why is some of the money going to buy chairs and desks for Homeland Security? Under what possible point of view is that a proper use of money denoted and described as “economic stimulus”? I have no patience with those who say “we’ll, it may not be stimulus, but it’s only X% of the Bill.” As far as I’m concerned, the percentage of the bill not going to stimulus should be 0%. Chairs for government asses certainly don’t fit that criterion on my planet, but YMMV. PS - Since we’re asking for citations, I’d like one for the Keynes quote about digging holes. Not saying he didn’t say it … it’s just that I can find nothing but third-hand “quotations from memory” on the web. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/105 "2009-02-17T06:29:58Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Why is some of the money going to buy chairs and desks for Homeland Security? Under what possible point of view is that a proper use of money denoted and described as “economic stimulus”? > > I have no patience with those who say “we’ll, it may not be stimulus, but it’s only X% of the Bill.” As far as I’m concerned, the percentage of the bill not going to stimulus should be 0%. Chairs for government asses certainly don’t fit that criterion on my planet Okay. Could you please provide us with a clear, specific and unambiguous criterion for distinguishing between “stimulus” activities and “non-stimulus” activities? AFAICT, the allocation of funds for chairs and desks for DHS is part of the allocation to construct a new DHS headquarters. It seems pretty obvious that if they do construct a new building for DHS, they’ll need to put furniture in it. So I presume that what you’re objecting to is the allocation of money to build the DHS headquarters in the first place. I certainly don’t know whether this is an optimal, necessary or even desirable project on which to spend government money, but I’m having trouble seeing why it would be automatically dismissed as “non-stimulus”. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/106 "2009-02-17T06:46:07Z")
> [@intention](#): > > PS - Since we’re asking for citations, I’d like one for the Keynes quote about digging holes. AFAICT, this expression is usually considered to paraphrase the following passages from Keynes’s _General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money_: [Ch. 10](http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch10.htm), sect. VI: > [@](#): > > For a man who has been long unemployed some measure of labour, instead of involving disutility, may have a positive utility. If this is accepted, the above reasoning shows how “wasteful” loan expenditure[8] may nevertheless enrich the community on balance. Pyramid-building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth, if the education of our statesmen on the principles of the classical economics stands in the way of anything better. > > It is curious how common sense, wriggling for an escape from absurd conclusions, has been apt to reach a preference for wholly “wasteful” forms of loan expenditure rather than for partly wasteful forms, which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict “business” principles. For example, unemployment relief financed by loans is more readily accepted than the financing of improvements at a charge below the current rate of interest; whilst the form of digging holes in the ground known as gold-mining, which not only adds nothing whatever to the real wealth of the world but involves the disutility of labour, is the most acceptable of all solutions. > > If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing. [Ch. 16](http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch16.htm), sect. III: > [@](#): > > If — for whatever reason — the rate of interest cannot fall as fast as the marginal efficiency of capital would fall with a rate of accumulation corresponding to what the community would choose to save at a rate of interest equal to the marginal efficiency of capital in conditions of full employment, then even a diversion of the desire to hold wealth towards assets, which will in fact yield no economic fruits whatever, will increase economic well-being. In so far as millionaires find their satisfaction in building mighty mansions to contain their bodies when alive and pyramids to shelter them after death, or, repenting of their sins, erect cathedrals and endow monasteries or foreign missions, the day when abundance of capital will interfere with abundance of output may be postponed. “To dig holes in the ground,” paid for out of savings, will increase, not only employment, but the real national dividend of useful goods and services. It is not reasonable, however, that a sensible community should be content to remain dependent on such fortuitous and often wasteful mitigations when once we understand the influences upon which effective demand depends. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/107 "2009-02-17T09:13:38Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > _Maybe_ the broadening of the reach of the child tax credit. And that’s it. The bill was a feeding frenzy of [del]public money[/del] future debt. What you listed here was a change in the welfare rules lowering the amount a couple can collect on from a salary of 8,000/year to a salary of $3000. It may appear to be a small change but its another step backward toward a welfare state. I suspect it will be added too as time passes until we will again have a growing dependent 2nd class. The reason it was ended in the first place was to end the vicious cycle of poverty that welfare breeds. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/108 "2009-02-17T10:41:13Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The reason it was ended in the first place was to end the vicious cycle of poverty that welfare breeds. As opposed to the prosperity that being left to starve creates ? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/109 "2009-02-17T11:38:55Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As opposed to the prosperity that being left to starve creates ? As opposed to the idea that people become independent and raise their children accordingly. Nobody is served by the vicious cycle of poverty, least of all the children who have no guidance and are condemned to repeat the process. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/110 "2009-02-17T12:26:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The bill was a feeding frenzy of [del]public money[/del] future debt. What you listed here was a change in the welfare rules lowering the amount a couple can collect on from a salary of 8,000/year to a salary of $3000. It may appear to be a small change but its another step backward toward a welfare state. How exactly do you see an expanded child tax credit as “welfare rules”??? **intention** yes it would be nice if, out of $787 billion, _every cent_ was money spent on what everyone completely agreed was pure stimulus. Live in the real world much? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/111 "2009-02-17T13:37:42Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > As opposed to the idea that people become independent and raise their children accordingly. Or just live on the streets and eat out of garbage cans. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/112 "2009-02-17T14:03:53Z")
Hey, tough love! Maybe tough like. OK, tough shit. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/113 "2009-02-17T16:32:00Z")
It’s a pity the OP abandoned his thread. I wonder if he’s changed his mind over the last few days. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/114 "2009-02-17T16:33:31Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > How exactly do you see an expanded child tax credit as “welfare rules”??? How much tax, net, does a couple earning that much pay? ISTM it isn’t really a tax if you are getting back more than you put in - more like a means-tested subsidy. Which is pretty close to a definition of “welfare” with a lower-case ‘w’. > [@](#): > > **intention** yes it would be nice if, out of $787 billion, _every cent_ was money spent on what everyone completely agreed was pure stimulus. Live in the real world much? See, there’s the problem. Not even the supporters of the “stimulus” package can pretend that a crapload of it is really for stimulus. Hence the objection to hiring people to dig and fill in holes. That spending will be a net drag on the economy, since it incurs future debt with no offsetting rise in productivity. On the whole, therefore, the notion that this package pays a lot of people to dig us into a hole is a lot more apt than I like to think about. The guy filling in holes has to be paid for, eventually. If we don’t do what was being claimed - increasing productivity thru infrastructure spending - then we are merely postponing the crash, and making it worse when it happens. **Stratocaster** is right - [ul][li]We have to do something[_]This is something[_]Therefore, we have to do it[/ul] is not a syllogism on which I would care to bet the future of the economy.[/li] Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/115 "2009-02-17T16:43:39Z")
Well, gosh, when you put it like that, it certainly does seem rather stupid. If you put it like that, that is. But it isn’t like that, so it isn’t. See, its stuff like this which is why you guys never win any elections… ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/116 "2009-02-17T17:04:04Z")
[quote=“Shodan, post:114, topic:485652”] **Stratocaster** is right - [ul][li]We have to do something[_]This is something[_]Therefore, we have to do it[/ul] is not a syllogism on which I would care to bet the future of the economy.[/li][/QUOTE] Why not? It’s the same formula your side used to justify the war in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Ocean\_Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8797f3/32.png) [@Ocean\_Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ocean_Annie)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/117 "2009-02-17T19:15:10Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > As opposed to the idea that people become independent and raise their children accordingly. Nobody is served by the vicious cycle of poverty, least of all the children who have no guidance and are condemned to repeat the process. I know this has been said, but it is worth repeating, the poor will spend the money the fastest. The poor don’t have disposable income, so money will be spent on essentials. I know the Heritage Foundation doesn’t believe a person can be poor and possess a color TV, but rational people understand that this is the United States not Haiti and color TVs are often donated. People on the right seem to forget that 7 out of 10 households earn less than $55,000 a year and American households are drowning in debt. This unwavering ideological stance has become completely irrational. Would you let the neighbor’s house burn down and risk your own because the neighbor didn’t pay fire insurance? [House Hold Income](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/118 "2009-02-17T19:37:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > How much tax, net, does a couple earning that much pay? > > ISTM it isn’t really a tax if you are getting back more than you put in - more like a means-tested subsidy. Which is pretty close to a definition of “welfare” with a lower-case ‘w’. The conditions that qualify for individuals to get the “additional child tax credit” (and get back more than they put in) are very restricted; specifically these cases would be [excluded.](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/ctc_brief.html) > [@](#): > > Refundable credits can result in a net payment, or refund, to the taxpayer beyond what he or she actually owes in taxes. A family’s additional child tax credit in 2008 is equal to 15 percent of all earnings above $12,050, up to the maximum $1,000 credit per child. Thus, families making $12,050 and under will not receive any benefit under the additional child tax credit. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/119 "2009-02-17T19:56:41Z")
Kimstu, my thanks as always for the quote. I feared it might have been misinterpreted, and I see I am correct. What Keynes actually said was (emphasis mine) > [@](#): > > “To dig holes in the ground,” _ **paid for out of savings** _, will increase, not only employment, but the real national dividend of useful goods and services. I’m sure that everyone here can see the difference between that and what is currently proposed. Also, while Keynes was a genius, I’m afraid I don’t see how borrowing money to build pyramids is a net gain. Yes, taking money out of savings is a net gain. But if the Pharoah said to the peasants “Well, guys, I’ve borrowed a million dollars. I’m going to repay it with all the taxes you folks pay me. And I’m going to take all of that money and build a big pile of stones.” I doubt if the peasants cheered … after all, it’s their money going into a useless pile of stones. Now maybe it’s because I’m just a simple reformed cowboy, but I don’t see any net gain in borrowing money from the peasants to build a pile of rocks. I say the peasants would have been much better off with the money in their pockets. Perhaps someone could fight my ignorance on that subject. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/120 "2009-02-17T20:46:20Z")
Except that in this instance, the peasants are dependent on piling rocks. We have a consumerist economy. I would that we didn’t, but it is what it is until we change it (and ourselves). Some of our economy is geared to producing necessities, and some is geared to the production of loud, shiny, and essentially useless crap. You cannot choose to be divorced from the consumerist economy without assuming changes that most of us shrink from. Its like the old story of the gambler who noticed a friend playing at a card game that he knew was crooked. Why do you play at this table? he asked. Don’t you know its crooked? Sure, was the reply, but its the only game in town. And so it goes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652.md?page=7)